Special counsel moves to abandon election interference and classified documents cases against Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith moved to abandon two criminal cases against Donald Trump on Monday, acknowledging that Trump’s return to the White House will preclude attempts to federally prosecute him for retaining classified documents or trying to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

The decision was inevitable, since longstanding Justice Department policy says sitting presidents cannot face criminal prosecution. Yet it was still a momentous finale to an unprecedented chapter in political and law enforcement history, as federal officials attempted to hold accountable a former president while he was simultaneously running for another term.

Trump emerges indisputably victorious, having successfully delayed the investigations through legal maneuvers and then winning re-election despite indictments that described his actions as a threat to the country’s constitutional foundations.

“I persevered, against all odds, and WON,” Trump exulted in a post on Truth Social, his social media website.

He also said that “these cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought.”

The judge in the election case granted prosecutors’ dismissal request. A decision in the documents case was still pending on Monday afternoon.

The outcome makes it clear that, when it comes to a president and criminal accusations, nothing supersedes the voters’ own verdict. In court filings, Smith’s team emphasized that the move to end their prosecutions was not a reflection of the merit of the cases but a recognition of the legal shield that surrounds any commander in chief.

“That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind,” prosecutors said in one of their filings.

They wrote that Trump’s return to the White House “sets at odds two fundamental and compelling national interests: on the one hand, the Constitution’s requirement that the President must not be unduly encumbered in fulfilling his weighty responsibilities . . . and on the other hand, the Nation’s commitment to the rule of law.”

In this situation, “the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” they concluded.